tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 4, 2010 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
>> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." the congressional battle over healthcare reform is history. now, what about other tough issues like job creation, financial regulation and energy. we'll see if there is any chance for bipartisan action when we talk about jon kyl and arlen specter, democrat from pennsylvania. then, fresh polls have republicans thinking 2010 is their year. and then fresh polls have republicans thinking 2010 is their year. a preview from kevin mccarthy, the man in charge of writing a new contract with america, and amid new worries about iran's nuclear ambitions we willle ask
the sunday group if tough sanctions can prevent the rogue nation from making the buy. all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington and happy easter. of thousands of the faithful gathered at the vatican for easter services despite a light rain and new allegations the catholic church covered up charges of sex abuse by the clergy. pope benedict made no mention of the scandal in his easter message but one cardinal praised him as a courageous leader and dismissed the allegations at "petty gossip." here on capitol hill the talk is about what is next in the wake of the long bat the over healthcare reform. joining us to discuss that are two senate leaders.
and from philadelphia, democrat arlen specter. the unemployment numbers from march came out on friday and present a mixed picture i think it is fair to say. 162,000 jobs were created, the most in three years but unemployment stayed at 9.7%. senator kyl, will republicans support more economic stimulus >> more tax incentives for small business? pa paefpaef we will have to do things like extending unemployment benefits because unemployment is so high, 9.7%, 15 million americans unemployed. but that is not a job stimulater. so we will do those things to take care of the families that are suffering right now. but in terms of stimulus, i think what republicans will do is look carefully at any more spending plans because as it turns out we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to very little effect. most of the jobs created are government jobs, even in the latest figures that you noted. 48,000 of the jobs are temporary census takers and it is not the kind of private sector job creation that we know will sustain and economic recovery. i think rather than supporting spending to stimulate job
>> rather than supporting spending to stimulate job creation republicans will prefer to look to things for example like tax relief, i noted christine romer one of the president's economic advisors, talked very glowingly for example, about a zero capital gains rate for small businesses. and, applying that to all business and i think you would see that stimulate economic growth for example. >> chris: just briefly, senator kyl, if it is tax incentives, especially for small business, but as you say, maybe extended to other businesses, the g.o.p. would be on board, for that? >> depending on what it is. i think, my idea. >> chris: if the president asked congress tomorrow, to give him a bill in a week, freezing all tax rates and doesn't cut them, and holds them where they are and does not impose the 500-plus billion dollars in taxes in the health bill, i think you would see the stock market skyrocket the next day, because, business would know that taxes will be stable, and they have the ability to raise capital and invest it in the businesses.
>> chris: >> specter i wa-- i want to putp a chart, what happened to unemployment with and without the $800 billion stimulus passage you voted for, as you can see from looking at the chart the economy is performing worse than they said it would with no stimulus. given that history, should congress borrow -- that is what it amounts to, borrow tens of billions of dollars more, for economic stimulus ? borrow tens of billions of dollars more for economic stimulus? >> chris, the stimulus may not have been all that we had hoped for. but i think there is general agreement that had the stimulus not passed we would have sunk into a 1929 depression. i think a more important issue right now is what is going to happen on the currency talks with the chinese. i think that american industry, the steel industry, for example, can compete with chinese steel if we don't have the currency manipulation. the chinese president is coming to the united states and we do
need concessions as to what is going to happen to sanctions on iran. the chinese are not doing us a big fiver in doing that, it is not in their interest to have iran with nuclear weapons. the steel industry could provide a lot more jobs in my state and across the country. the trade imbalance is $337 billion. chinese imports to the united states about a fifth of that from the u.s. to china. so i would like to see our system on a level playing field before we talk about more federal subsidies. >> chris: but having said that, senator specter, i'm sure you know that the treasury department announced yesterday they will delay their report about whether or not the chinese are manipulating their currency. some people think that may have something to do with our effort when president hu is going to be in the united states to try to get him on board for iran sanctions. i take it you don't think that
the obama administration is doing the right thing there? >> i'm not too happy about a delay. if we get something specific from the chinese, okay. but what we are looking at for the national interests along help on sanctions against iran, let the nation pay for it instead of one specific industry. we have a real problem with the chinese. they are very shrewd and customarily outmaneuver us. they take our jobs and money and then lend it back to us and own a big part of america. let's watch exactly what is happening. if we get something concrete, a delay might be okay but we can't stand back and let them manipulate the currency and run us ragged on the economy. >> chris: senator kyl, the president and democrats are talking about even now that healthcare passed an ambitious agenda for the rest of this
year during the healthcare debate when the democrats talked about and eventually ended up using reconciliation to pass healthcare reform you and a lott of other republicans said that might kill cooperation on financial reform, immigration reform, energy reform. are you ruling out any bipartisanship in the senate for the rest of the year? >> not at all. i think the comments that were made there represented frustration on our part that democrats were doing it all by themselves and stiffing republicans and obviously that doesn't promote cooperation. you mentioned regulatory reform for example. there were bipartisan negotiations going on that looked like they might lead to some where and for whatever reasons chris dodd decided to pull back and present just a partisan bill. the understanding was that he was losing votes on his far left by working with republicans. but it seems to me that on something like that where there is an opportunity to work together we all agree we need to do some things. it would be far better to try
to do it with a broad middle coalition that does include republicans and if that means you lose a few votes on the far left and maybe don't get all of the votes on the right, so be it. at least you have done something the american people would like to see us do. as of right now, that, too, seems to be drifting in a partisan direction and if it does it will be hard to pass. >> chris: that is one of the items that comes to the floor after the senate goes back in session. financial regulations. tighter controls on hedge funds and exotic investments like derivatives and also a consumer protection regulator in the fed. do you expect to get bipartisan cooperation there, senator specter? >> i do not, only one republican, senate corker would step forward and negotiate with chris dodd. i think senator kyl paints a rosier picture about the prospects for bipartisan
support than is there. real effort was made. if the republicans would cooperate and participate. in healthcare not one of 41 republicans in the senate. not 1 of 177 republicans in the house would join in. i think there may be a big push by the public to demand bipartisanship. you see, everybody's approval rating falling. congress is in great disrepute by the american people and with good cause because of the gridlock of bipartisan bickering. many republicans don't like to see their numbers go down and if there was enough public demand, the democratic party for a long time has been controlled as has the republican by people on the fringes. but when everybody's rating goes down because of the bickering and gridlock that may be a real compelling factor to produce bipartisanship
cooperation. >> chris: let me bring in senator kyl, if i may, senator specter. as opposed to healthcare reform at least in the polls isn't financial regulation a political winner for democrats and if the republicans continue to oppose the bill that the democrats are going to present, you know they are going to portray you as protecting the fat cats on wall street at the expense of main street. >> well, let me go back just one step first. republicans reflected the public will with respect to healthcare. every poll showed significant opposition to the healthcare legislation by two to one the american people said stop it from passing. we tried to do that. but the democrats were able to jam it through. on regulatory reform, there is broad support in the public even though there is not a good understanding of exactly the kind of complicated regulatory reform that is necessary here, there is an understanding there are things we need to do and republicans believe that just
as much as democrats. this was not a matter as my friend arlen specter said of republicans refusing to negotiate. each member of the banking committee was assigned to in effect a subcommittee to work on solving a specific problem. >> chris: i don't want to get too far, senator. >> they were making significant progress when at a certain point chris dodd decided to pull the plug and go a strictly partisan route. i believe there is a substantial opportunity for bipartisanship working together to resolve the regulatory reform issue. >> chris: gentlemen, i want to switch subjects on you. you are both distinguished members of the senate judiciary committee and there is widespread speculation the oldest supreme court justice gave to the new york times and washington post today that he may retire soon. may retire before the end of this term which means, of course, that there will be another vacancy on the highest court. senator specter, if there is a
vacancy, do you have some thoughts about the type of person that president obama should nominate? do you have some thoughts about the specific person he should nominate? >> i hope to begin a little earlier that justice stevens does not retire this year. i think the gridlock in the senate might well produce a filibuster which would tie up the senate on a supreme court nominee. i think if a year pass there's is a better chance we could come to a consensus. i think we need someone who will step into justice stevens' shoes and be tough on the issues of executive power. a federal court this last week declared the warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional. i think we need the kind of balance that justice stevens has provided to offset the majority on the court which is in favor of executive power. we need someone with strong academic and professional
credentials. i would like to see someone appoint the to the supreme court with a little broader background. we have enough ex-circuit justices on the supreme court. >> chris: do you have a nominee, senator specter? >> i do and i hope to see the president at the opening of the baseball season and i will tell him my thoughts for that. i will reserve it for the president instead of fox news if you don't mind, chris. well, i mind but there is nothing i can do it about it, we don't have subpoena powers. are you willing to pledge right now that the gop will not filibuster whoever the president nominates? >> it will depend on what kind of a person it is. i am a little troubled by what arlen said he wants somebody who and then he named two or three positions that he wants that person to take to be tough on executive powers, for example. i want a judge who will read
the law and declare it in each case that comes before him or her as it should be. in other wordsin other words, don't have somebody coming in with preconceived attitudes i will be tough on the executive or the lyle guy or whatever the preconceived attitudes are. we want a judge who will read the law in any particular case. as justice roberts said during the confirmation, if the law is on the side of the little guy the little guy wins, if the law is on the side of the big guy, the big guy wins. that is what we want in our judges. i think the president should nominate a qualified person. i hope he does not nominate an overly idealogiccal person. that would be the test and if he doesn't nominate someone overly idealogiccal republicans may vote against but i don't think you will see them engage in a filibuster. >> chris: you and most other republicans denounced democrats a couple of years ago.
when they were filibustering judicial nominees and at that point you said this and let's put it up on the screen. it has never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do. so why was filibustering judicial nominees wrong then but it might be right now? >> it is wrong and it shouldn't be done but i think you would agree if only one side is permitted to do it the democrats and not the republicans you have a very unfair system. i would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party. the democrats won that fight. they filibuster miguel estrada. he never got on the court. seven other circuit court nominees. we need to apply the rule that the gang of 14 game up with that you don't filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances and i'm willing to live by that general rule. >> chris: less than a men left, senator kyl. bad week for the republican national committee. the story about tremendous
spending on private planes and a bar tab at a sex themed nightclub and now we have carl rove and tony perkins of the family research council saying don't give money to the rnc. how troubled are you by the situation there and should rnc chairman michael steele step down? >> i'm not in the position of the people who elect michael steele to say if he should step down or not but this kind of thing has got to stop or they won't get any contributions. the people who contribute to the committees, both democrat and republican, want to know that their money is well spent for the cause and it needs to be that way. >> chris: senator kyl, senator specter, thank you so much for talking with us today. please come back, gentlemen. >> thank you. >> thank you. up next, the man responsible for writing the version of the gop contract with america. we will ask congressman kevin mccarthy about his plans for mccarthy about his plans for taking back the house. [ le announcer ] as long as we're winding up our doing dials,
let's wind 'em with precision. open our throttle to even more selection. and turn that savings swagger up full tilt. ♪ so when the time comes to bust open a can of doing... we've got all the tools for all the things we need to make 'em happen. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. ght now, get scotts nature scapes mulch for the new lower price of just $3.88.
>> chris: the 2010 mid terms are shaping up as a possible wave election. will republicans take back control of the house and senate? here to discuss gop prospects, congressman kevin mccarthy, the party's top recruiter of house candidates also in charge of writing this year's version of the contract with america. the congressman is making his first sunday show appearance from his hometown of bakersfield, california. let's start with the political landscape. according to the latest gallup poll on the generic ballot question of which candidate do you prefer if your congressional district, registered voters picked the republican by the democrat by a margin of 47% over 44%. how good a year is this shaping up to be for the gop? >> if we compare this to 1994
and march of '94 republicans were only ahead by one point. as you said, in this gallup poll this is registered voters. if you go to likely voters that probably gives you about a four more-point advantage to republicans. this is a much better year shaping up earlier but there is still a distance to go before we get to november. >> chris: charlie cook, perhaps the independent analyst who watches the house races most closely here in washington projects a republican pickup this year of 25 to 35 seats. of course, you need a net gain of 40 seats to take back control of the house. are you going to get there? >> chris, i think the opportunity is there for republicans to take control of the house. this is going to be a national campaign. that means it goes beyond the district. if you look at every measurement from the gallup poll to the number of recruits that we have to new jersey and virginia much like '93 and 2005 they were early indicators of where the country is going.
the country is frustrated and angry at the arrogance of washington. doesn't mean they are happy republicans but he are upset with the arrogance of washington. i think republicans have an opportunity. when you look at the election it is not just about politics. i do want republicans to do well but this is really more importantly about america. i'm very proud to be an american. i want my children to have that pride. i want every child to have that pride. this is about the direction of where america is going to go. >> chris: when you talk about the arrogance of washington, are you suggesting that more than the economy, more than healthcare or even the reach of government that this general distaste with the arrogance or the overreach of washington as you call it, that that is really going to be the key issue in november? >> i think it's going to be about jobs. it's going to be about liberty. it going to be about listening to the individual and hope and prosperity. do you still have the hope and and direct within this country.
they wonder why aren't we fighting for jobs and rebuilding this country and when they look at this they just think washington is not listening. >> chris: as we said, you are in charge of coming up with this year's version of what in 1994 they called the contract with america. that was, of course, the '94 platform that helped republicans gain back control of the house. let's take a look at what was in the contract with america. it called for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, strict term limits and that all laws would apply equally to members of congress. as i say, you are going to call your version the commitment to america. what is going to be in it? >> i won't predetermine what is in it. this is an opportunity in our efforts to have the american people have a voice again. we will use all tools available from the internet and town hall meetings and phone apps that people can bring forward solutions and work with us to make america move forward and that will help restore the trust.
you will find between april and september us engaging the america public, listening to them and using our principles to find solutions best for america and putting them forward. >> chris: will it be mostly the contract with america as i look back on it yesterday was a lot about process because, of course, you hadn't been in control of the congress for 40 years so it had to do with term limits and had to do with issues like how long members could serve as chairmen of committees. do you see the commitment to america being about process again or do you see it more about the issues that affect people's daily lives? >> i won't predetermine but i think the one thing american people will see, they want to see this country move forward so we will probably going to talk about jobs, national defense, where we are going. but also talk about the transparency. looking at how government has performed. congress not listening to them. we will see a process with transparency on how bills are created, delivered, when can
you see bills before they are even voted on. i believe that will probably be a part of it as well. >> chris: do you think you can recapture the impact that the contract with america had with voters in 1994? >> i think you see a frustration out there. of course, america is angry. i'm angry. look at the amount of money we are spending. look at the amount of debt that is accumulating. we are borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar. this administration will double our debt in less than five years. that is as much as all 43 administrations before. i see the american public frustrated out there and looking for a new direction and i think the republicans have an opportunity. we can win some seats by just being opposed but no way can we govern america without showing what we are for. the commitment is going to show us the new direction and road map of where america can go. >> dick army who was part of the gingrich team back in '94 and subsequently became the
house majority leader said they had a big advantage back then that you don't have this time and the advantage is that they had not been running the house, had not been running either -- well, no, had not been running the house for the previous four decades. and then wrote this then we just had to say we are not them, the democrats. now, we have to say we are not them and by the way, we are not the same republicans who just broke your heart a few years ago. how do you persuade voters because they got pretty sick of you guys, too, that you are not the same big spending, big government republicans who were controlling the house and ended up losing it just four years ago? >> chris, that is true, i mean republicans lose their way, yes, they did. i didn't come to congress until 2006 and i ran against the democrats and the republicans. one thing i will say to the american people. i think we have been earning our way back. look at the stimulus. every republican said no. we didn't just say no. we wrote our own bill that
showed a new direction that focused on small business for job creation. not one that focused on greater government and government taking over. did we lose our way? yes, we did. we have a new group of individuals and generational leaders that said there is a new direction and earning our way back and i think we have been working hard towards that. >> chris: why shouldn't voters suspect or believe if you get back control it will be i know that you are taking a one mere moratorium on ear marks but it will be the same ear marks and big spending that turned off so many conservatives over the previous 12 years? >> hold our feet to the fire. that is the one thing you will find in the commitment. we will lay out to the american public about what we are going to do. you may also see the commitment of things that we will not do and we will make that pledge and commitment to the american people. if we do not do the job, throw us out. that is the opportunity and why you have campaigns and you are able to see what transpired in
the last two years of republicans earning their way back showing where they will be and the commitment made to the american people. >> chris: what about the tea party which is obviously a big force or we think it will be a big force in 2010. obviously very unhappy with the arrogance of washington but as disenchanted i think it is fair to say with the republican establishment as the democrats. according to the polls if they decide in some races to field third-party independent candidates that is going to come mostly out of your hide. >> it very well could. the one thing found across the country has been engagement in the campaigns. much of the tea party is an organically grown frustration out there with the size of government, the amount of debt we are accumulating, the lack of listening. a lot of that when you see from republicans what we are offering there is a place for them to go. there are a lot of primaries we are engaged in.
i find that one of the reasons i'm a republican, i believe in the free market and the free market of ideas. i think that is positive and helpful. the american public should engage in their government. the american public should engage in this process as well as in the campaign. >> how do you feel about the tea party running independent candidates against both the democrat and the republican? >> at the end of the day i think everybody across the country can lay out their ideas. if you want a new direction in america, if you want a check and balance and focus on jobs and and the debt you have to make a real cake in where washington is going. that is why i say this is a national campaign. at the end of the day, i think people h come home and see from the direction of where they want, do they want congress to continue and go the way they are. do they want to check and balance on this president? do they want to keep or change where the debt is going? i think they will find that the republican party has something to offer and it is important that we have a commitment to america and we lay out what we are for. >> chris: stan greenberg who was bill clinton's pollster
commented this week, he said that you guys have already had your 1994 big explosion of support and big revoltion against the democratic majority and that was with scott brown's victory in massachusetts on january 19th. he says that the republicans have peaked too early this year. >> i don't find that to be the case. why do we continue to grow and why does the gallop poll continue to show it. and if he is making that statement after they shoved down healthcare without the american people being for it, that is very difficult. do we have our work cut out for us? yes, we do. i don't think the direction and what the democrats are selling is what the american public is buying. i understand he can be a pollster and november is a ways away but i think there is a fundamental difference and a greater contrast between republican and democrat and this is going to be more about america and who lays out the
plan for where the direction of america should go. >> chris: we have about 30 seconds left. i want 20 ask you the same question i asked senator kyl. how troubled are you by the reports about spending and what the spending was for at the republican national committee and do you feel full confidence, do you have full confidence in rnc chairman michael steele? >> look, i'm very focused on house races but the rnc does have some challenges that they need to correct. not only did the american people request it but the republicans requested it as well. as we move forward in this campaign look at the victories from new jersey to virginia that they have been engaged in and they have outraised the democrats 7 of the last 12 months. if we are going to show the american public that we believe in accountability and bringing it back to washington we have to make sure that the rnc has the accountability just the same. as part of that accountability, you did not give when i just asked you, you did not give michael steele a vote of confidence.
>> i think he worked hard. i think when you find the challenges going forward that you heard he was not at the location. he is trying to correct it. he has to bring the trust back and that may mean shaking other roles inside the rnc as well. >> chris: thank you so much for talking with us. and now that you know your way to "fox news sunday," please come back, sir. >> be glad to be back. >> chris: new jobless numbers send a mixed message about the state of the economy. our sunday panel tells us where we are on the road to recovery. back in a moment. boss:hey, glad i caught you. i was on my way to present ideas about all the discounts we're offering. i've got some catchphrases that'll make these savings even more memorable. gecko: all right... gecko: good driver discounts. now that's the stuff...? boss: how 'bout this? gecko: ...they're the bee's knees? boss: or this? gecko: sir, how 'bout just "fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." boss: ha, yeah, good luck with that catching on! anncr: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
>> chris: today is an en. today is an encouraging day. we learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. we are beginning to turn the corner. >> chris: president obama accentuating the positive in the new unemployment numbers for last month.
if is time for the sunday group. brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. contributors nina easton from "fortune" magazine. bill kristol of the weekly standard and juan williams from national public radio. let's review the numbers. unemployment stayed at 9.7%. 162,000 jobs created the most in three years but the hiring for the census bureau was greater, 48,000, than all of the hiring for the manufacturing sector in the country. so when you add all of pluses and minuses together where is this economy? >> first of all, happy easter to everyone. i think the president had it right when he said we are beginning to turn the corner. he didn't say we turned it, he didn't say we are turning it. he said we are beginning to turn the corner which seems about right to me. just as in the past so many of the jobs were the government jobs which have been saved as they like to say or created. this is in jobs term an
f exceedingly feeble recovery. the unemployment rate is also the most sensitive political indicator and as long as it remains high republican prospects remain strong and the fact that the obama administration and congress led by the democrats spent so much time on the healthcare reform bill that was really not the public's priority will down to their discredit in this fall election. >> chris: 162,000 jobs were created. wall street forecasts were in the neighborhood of 250,000 jobs. and in fact you need about that many if you are really going to cut into the unemployment rate. so we are a long way away from -- look, it is a lot better than a year ago when we were losing over a half million jobs a month but still a long way away from cutting into the unemployment rate. we don't want to look like naysayers here on easter sunday
but you need to create 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the population growth. so these numbers are staggering. the good news is small businesses seem to have stopped layoffs, the big companies did their big layoffs last year. so things seem to be kind of ebbing. on the other hand, unemployment, even rosy scenarios show unemployment in the 8% range going out three years. we are stuck with unemployment for a long time. give than as an administration what should you be doing? should you be raising taxes. one number i read, taxes could be 2% of gdp by 2011 if you take -- increase in taxes if you take into account the increases at the state and local level as well. that is going to impede recovery and impede growth. trade. we are not throwing ourselves into the global market. the south korea trade agreement, if we had gone forward with that, that is a
325,000 job potential. if you are not going to help business move forward you are not going to help unemployment. >> chris: let's talk, bill, about what the white house and congressional democrats are talking about which is more stimulus, extending unemployment benefits, more aid to states which are being crushed and have to lay off more people. more tax incentives for more small business. several questions. one -- is the president going to make the famous hard pivot to jobs. will congress pass another obviously not $787 billion but a substantial stimulus and will it have any impact on the economy? >> the right kinds of legislation could have an impact but the president is mostly not talking about the right kind of legislation. we lost 7 million private sector jobs in the last year and a half. public employment has remained steady. most of what you are talking about helping states will help public sector employment. that is not pro growth. it is some what negative for growth. taking on more debt, i think we
really have a -- we are having a little cyclical rebound, an inventory rebound of the kind we always had. we had ease in monetary policy. huge quantitative easing. the fed has bought $1.25 trillion of mortgages in the last year and a half. that is going to come up with -- that takes a lot of demand out of the -- that helps the bond market and helps the stock market indirectly but that is now ending so i think we will have a mild recovery and unfortunately lapse back next year because we don't have. >> lapse back into another recession. >> at least slow japan style growth for the '90s. there may be a recession. we don't have progrowth policies. can you have a serious recovery when taxes are being raised, interest rates are going up and the regulatory burden season getting heavier. those are facts. taxes are going up. interest rates are going up. intermediate and long-term and they will keep going up because of the deficit and the regulatory burden is getting heavier. i don't know what economic theory tells you you get good growth with those things going on. >> chris: juan? looks to me, where i invest my
money on wall street the people on wall street see a winning streak in place. they seem optimistic. seems if you look at the way that this economy is going, it has been shaky and we were on the edge of the precipice with depression possible before we had the stimulus package and now it seems to me, why are so many people on this panel so negative about the fact that things are starting to rebound? i mean seems to me in this day of faith we should say wow, this is the start of something that has potential. it is not as if it is going to take off like a rocket. i don't think that. i think that we now see reasons for optimism and consumer confidence growing and we are starting to see people more confident about hiring. we had a plus in terms of private sector payroll in the last report. these are positive signs. when the white house talks they talk in terms of more infrastructure spending and green jobs and more energy
efficient jobs a that would help with the decline in the manufacturing sector. healthcare sector, education sector, low paying jobs in terms of hospitality and leisure those are up and those may be the new growth sectors for the american economy. >> chris: what to you think of the white house's ideas as translated by juan williams. >> he has given a good summary of ideas that will do very little good. this is an administration set by an economic illiteracy. i don't think the president or those around him have a grasp, surprisingly have a very little grasp of how the private sector works and how incentives work and disincentives work. they talk about the effect of the stimulus. i think the stimulus has been remarkably ineffective and you know that their analyses never seem to include the effect of what the federal reserve has been doing. unprecedented efforts to inject cash into the economy. a lot of it has gotten into the economy and that i think has provided whatever
buyoyncy that we have. talk to bankers and potential borrowers across the country they are saying even now that credit still remains for many of the potential borrowers a tremendous problem. credit is tight and this restricts their ability to invest and to grow and naturally therefore to hire and that is part of what is holding this recovery back. this economy needs to be unleashed. what has happened over the past year or so is that it has been leashed. >> how do you unleash? we had tax cuts through the bush years. president obama extended the bush tax cuts and we have in place a regulatory atmosphere that is trying to respond to the excesses of wall street and those very bankers and you want to sit here and defend the bankers and corporate america after this terrible performance? >> going up next year that is a fact. he extended the bush tax cuts. why did he do that? because he knew that raising taxes is deflationary and
recessionary. why not extend them to next year? >> you are making a political argument of what is to come. i'm saying based on -- >> president obama has cut taxes. is that an argument? >> he has not cut taxes in a way that would be meaningful to the private sector and business owners. they are virtually unanimous on this point that the credit atmosphere, the tax atmosphere and the general regulatory atmosphere are all adverse to job creation and the growth of their businesses. they are all trying and do the best they can. when you said defending corporate america. juan, who do you think does the hiring? >> i'm all for corporate america. i'm a capitalist. >> well, that is good. >> there are times when you see excesses and when you see people acting in a greedy manner and they are not hiring because they are getting more productivity out of american workers. they are not looking out for the people unemployed. they aren't taking the risks and the bankers are not taking the risks in terms of credit. >> the bankers are not taking the risk which is a regrettable
side effect in an effort to crack down because of the meltdown. we all understand that is the reason for that. >> the bangers that were bailed out by the american people. >> the truth about the bankers in increasing numbers is the money in they borrowed from the federal government is being paid back. can't say that about chrysler and general motors yet, can you? no. >> chris: we have to take a break here. when we come back, the obama administration pushes for new sanctions on iran within weeks. will they get them and will they do any good? we'll ask the panel when we [ female announcer ] breathe right asks... [ woman ] could i ask you to strip on the street? absolutely! i have a lot of stuffiness at night. it wakes me up. i have allergies. ♪ you're right. i'm getting more air. -oh, yeah. -oh, wow! [ female announcer ] for two free samples, go to breatheright.com.
i'm interested in seeing that a regime in place in weeks. >> chris: president obama sounding surprisingly confident he can get the international commune tout take new action against iran sooner rather than later. we are back with the sunday group. new sanctions against iran in weeks, imposed by the u.n. with russia and china on board. how likely is that? >> i think it is likely there there will be a fourth round of sanctions. will be -- the president said i'm not going to wait for months for a sanctions regime to be in place. there is one in place for three years. >> three sanctions. >> resolutions passed by the u.n. security council. this will be a fourth and it will be mild and not make a difference. the only things to stop the iranian nuclear program would be the success of the green movement in iran which the obama administration has done nothing to help and remains indifferent to and stand offish to, on the one hand, and military action on the other which the obama administration
seems uninterested in doing and i'm afraid it's setting up a situation where israel feels it has to act. >> are you as pessimistic about the likelihood that if there are sanctions that they will do anything? >> stepping back because this is important there will be sanctions and i think that is really key. china is key to this. i was there in beijing a couple of weeks ago and met with ambassador john huntsman. speaks full mandarin, which is a sight to see. it was during a period of intense relations in the u.s. and china over the president's meeting can the dalai lama. over arms sales to taiwan. the one area where there was optimism is the coming together on iran and i think we will see sanctions against the revolutionary guard which as we know runs the corporate entities, you know, airports terminals and so forth. and there will be sanctions, the chinese are going to come onboard. sanctions are one piece of a broader array of approach that you have to go after iran on.
i think it is a step forward. it is an important step forward that you have china and russia onboard on this. >> chris: i didn't know you were just in china you can be our ambassador there even if if you don't speak fluent mandarin. >> not quite. why because the chinese have the important trade relationship with iran so they are not going to do something, why are they going to do something? their argument was that other kinds of sanctions, for example, gasoline, clamping down on gasoline going into the country would hurt the population and wouldn't have an effect on the nuclear program. they believe that clamping down on the revolutionary guard actually could have some effect. they feel like it will be effective. so i think that that is their stated reason for being willing to go along with it. >> chris: how big a deal, brit, if it is true that the chinese are on board and as we pointed out president hu is going to come to the united states for this nuclear security summit a week from monday and
coincidentally the treasury department is delaying its report about the manipulation of the chinese currency. >> nina is right to the extent that china has agreed to talk about this. the question is will they agree to the sanctions that she described and will it have an effect. this process of sanctions and pressure on iran has been the relentless determination that that regime has shown to acquire nuclear weapons. it has been not significantly deterred so far. i think it has been hampered but the will to do it seems to be there and i don't know that there is anything that is for thecoming here that will break that will. i just don't foresee that -- >> do you think there are any sanctions that could defer the iranians from going --
>> they don't really have any refinery capacity for all the petroleum and the result is that they have to import petroleum products to produce gasoline. if that were embargoed the economy of the country could come to a stop. that could bring the regime down. that would change things, the chinese and russians don't want to go along with that either. is wo so we are left to the otr sanctions that bite to some extent but haven't been enough to change their mind about this in anyway. >> juan? >> i think i see is there has there has been tremendous plow gress made with people recalcitrant to engage in the discussions, the russians and the chinese. i think look this, we are building now an international coalition of people standing against iran and being clear there is no vascillation about give the iranians a chance, this is just safe energy and they are just trying to help their people. everybody across the board now says this is in violation of standards and i think you are going to get more sanctions.
i come back to a critical question raised by bill kristol which is are the sanctions enough because i don't see that ahmadinejad is going to be deterred by the sanctions. and then comes thish sh issue w the u.s. responds if israel takes action or should the u.s. take the action there and i don't think anybody is at that point. the most important thing that happened is not on the talk about the conference call with the chinese or whatever, on not very important sanctions. it was an op ed in the liberal newspaper in israel by a former general and deputy defense minister. he is a labor guy and criticizes netanyahu for being too tough on settlements. he says why should netanyahu get any more on settlements. we israel he says going to need the support of the u.s. when we have to strike iran as we are going to have to this year. this is a former deputy defense minister who is a dove in
israeli contacts. it was really startling and people who know more than i do about israeli politics say this is important. for him, he is a former general, quite close i think to the defense minister. for him to say, as a matter of fact, that israel is going to have to strike iran this year suggests that the israelis don't have any confidence in the very limited sanctions that the u.n. is going to pass. maybe that is why netanyahu is treated so badly by obama, he wants to try to defer netanyahu from a strike. i think we are not being serious about the iranian nuclear program. and we are not being serious about -- >> chris: what does serious mean in your terms? >> if the president of the united states and secretary of state of the united states said that all options are on the table and. >> chris: that doesn't mean anything. they do say that. >> clinton didn't say it in the most recent speech about this and obama keeps talking about how he wants to give diplomacy a chance. i think we need the threat of force and threat of using force against iran.
it would be much better if we used force than if israel did. there is no evidence that the u.s. government is being at all serious about the use of force there. >> i would think that it would hamper. >> chris: let nina go ahead. >> you say that so blightly as you support what happens the next day after the use of force. i think it would be to get the international community together. you have to have sanctions and you have to have a clear threat of force. to blightly say. >> -- >> look, precisely because of the consequences of the force is to serious, whether we use force or israel uses force it is serious and the u.s. government has to think that through and play that out and the obama administration is so adverse to hinting at the use of force that we don't have the preparations going that we should have if israel is to strike. we heard secretary of defense gates who is not thussed about the use of force and he was appointed, of course, by george w. bush say look, we can do it and perhaps slow them down a couple of years or a few
years but they have already spread the infrastructure 10 so far and underground that they will be up and running in a few years. >> we have a huge dissent in iran that we could do a lot to help as well. that is what i would go back to as well. the administration does need to do more to help the grass roots in iran. there are other things besides sanctions and use of force. >> chris: , all right, we to leave it there. thank you all so much, panel. see you next week. check out the latest edition of panel plus where our group continues the discussion on our website "fox news sunday".com. we will post the video before noon eastern time. whistling we come back, we hear from you. when we come back, we hear from you. [ man ] you all right? [ male announcer ] we all need people who will be there for us in life. people who say, "we're with you, no matter what." at wachovia and wells fargo, we're with y, when a house turns into a home... excuse me, rufus. [ male announcer ] ...when a passion becomes a career...
♪ ...when a relationship turns into a lifetime... and when all the hard work finally pays off. we're with you when you need someone to stand by you. wachovia, wells fargo, and you. together we'll go far. let's wind 'em with precision. open our throttle to even more selection. and turn that savings swagger up full tilt. ♪ so when the time comes to bust open a can of doing... we've got all the tools for all the things we need to make 'em happen. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. ght now, get scotts nature scapes mulch for the new lower price of just $3.88.
was the topic, you had a lot to say who won and who lost. dr. alan goldberg from florida writes if rubio is against the new health care bill on ideological grounds, he must be opposed to medicare on the same grounds let him tell florida seniors he wants to end medicare and give them market-based solutions enstead. that will go over well. and from barto, florida, governor crist seems to only understand personal attacks as a campaign plan and rubio seems to think that issues are important. keep your chments coming at fox news sunday.com. that's it for today, have a happy easter and we'll see you next fox news sunday.